On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
Suppose I sent a letter to 25,000 scientists across the world asking
for signatures supporting the environmental efforts that Bush has
made. Suppose I received a positive return rate of only .5%. I could
then grab headlines with, "125 Scientists Praise Bush's Environmental
Efforts!"

Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the extreme you
stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so.

Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says that the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:10:27 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons

Yes, but not to that extreme.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:10:27 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons

Yes, but not to that extreme.

John H


Yeah, sure...

For a cheap laugh:

http://www.hauntedmansion.info/bushin41point2.htm

"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
Suppose I sent a letter to 25,000 scientists across the world asking
for signatures supporting the environmental efforts that Bush has
made. Suppose I received a positive return rate of only .5%. I could
then grab headlines with, "125 Scientists Praise Bush's Environmental
Efforts!"

Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the extreme you
stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so.

Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system
used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other
than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says that
the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"



Nope. Is redistribution of pollution. Does not really make sense. A
company can buy an old clunker and scrap it and gets xx pollution credit.
Bill

It makes plenty of sense if you run a company that pollutes plenty and is
rolling in cash. You buy your way out of the problem. This plan won't last
much longer, though, in my opinion. I think the country, as a whole, is
about to wake up from a long slumber.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"



Nope. Is redistribution of pollution. Does not really make sense. A
company can buy an old clunker and scrap it and gets xx pollution credit.
Bill

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Pollution Credits"

Thanks, Calif. I'll look it up and see what I can learn.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Thanks. That's why I couldn't find links. Busy here....links for John will
arrive later, after I strangle the telephone. Friggin' customers keep
interrupting me with business.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
Suppose I sent a letter to 25,000 scientists across the world asking
for signatures supporting the environmental efforts that Bush has
made. Suppose I received a positive return rate of only .5%. I could
then grab headlines with, "125 Scientists Praise Bush's Environmental
Efforts!"

Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the extreme you
stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so.

Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system
used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other
than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says
that
the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!